The Dumbest Thing Jordan Peterson Has Said in a While
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лис 2021
- Perennial grifter Jordan Peterson has challenged his own record for stupidity with a new appearance on BBC Question Time in which he opined on a whole range of delicate issues with the grace and poise of a bull in a china shop. This brief unscripted video points out the astonishing hypocrisy of Peterson's discourse and the key problems with the author's grasp of structural racism.
#questiontime #jordanpeterson #peterson - Розваги
More EMH content coming on Monday, don't worry! But I just *had* to make this. Also sorry for the low-quality footage, it's the only video source I could find.
He's not right wing. I had to stop the video there, due to ignorance, or bias.
@@Zoney06 I’m sorry that your ignorance and bias made you stop the video :(
@@Zoney06 In what possible way is Peterson anything but right wing?
@@PillarofGarbage its alright. JP's kind of dumb anyways. He uses big speech and pretends to be bigger than he is
@@PillarofGarbage Facts and statistics don't have a political side. You're projecting your own biases. Too many ignorant people confuse acknowledging the existence of something, with supporting something, for example (inequality).
It's incomprehensible how so many seem to find Jordan Peterson as some kind of genius intellectual of modern times.
I can understand his appeal, but I'm not sure I can explain it without needing a few thousand words.
for some people, intelligence is just being a contrarian
Are they all legitimately mentally deficient or is this a matter of perception?
It's a matter of perception, culturally and environmentally
Peterson said in the Zizek debat intelligence is being able to tell apart the chaff from the meaningful stuff while displaying his superficial understanding of the Communist Manifesto. Peterson himself can't see his own idiocy.
He just spouts nonsense because he has nothing else to say, he just babbles on because he does not want to disappoint his fans and does not have enough ideas to fill out the space.
The pot blaming the kettle at best.
It's hard to believe there was once a time when Peterson wasn't breaking into tears during every conversation.
To what do you attribute his recent penchant for tearing up? Is it just old age and the fear of oblivion?
@@brentwalker3300 Maybe. But I think having yourself put into a medically induced coma for a month probably doesn't help. There's a reason they only do that if you have a severe brain injury.
@@donnamurphy8551 he has become a preacher. they cry often.
It's hard to believe there was once a time when I found his messages meaningful and inspirational. I guess there has always been something wrong with his approach, but damn, he has recently fallen so low.
@@Eddison33 It seems that the same can be said for Tulsi Gabbard, Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, etc. A common refrain from all of these folks is that "the Democrats have gone crazy", yet I never hear a shred of evidence to support this claim. Personally, I think it's just that the right wing media grift pays better. Follow the money.
Just imagine the topic was food and world hunger. And Peterson demanded that a report lists EVERY person who is hungry "when, where, how exactly" to even acknowledge that somewhere someone is hungry. Someone would come to him and ask for food and he would make a speech of how vague "food" is as a category and that it is "low resolution thinking".
Is Lobster on the menu..?!
Yes, just imagine there was a report that talked about hunger being systemic and structural. Didn’t address who was starving and who wasn’t. Not the who, why or what was responsible for the shortage of food. Famine, war, soil erosion, soil nutrition, gaming..? No, just that it was ‘structural’ and ‘systemic’. Ingrained. That report would be absolutely useless. Which is exactly Peterson’s point. These buzzwords are vague to the point of meaninglessness. You’ve identified a problem but there can’t be any solution precisely because of its vagueness. Maybe that’s the point? So race and racism can be used as a political tool in perpetuity. A good report would identify specifics so they can be addressed.
Abstraction is just plain principle, and Peterson HAS no principles... and no class.
Uhhh, I mean isn't it kind of useful to know where people are starving?
Like isn't that the whole reason parents say 'kids in africa are starving so eat your food' but never 'kids in america'?
I feel like you're kind of targetting the wrong thing in the video here....
❤❤❤❤
He's a verbal vegan, he lives on word salads.
I know from having being around vegans that they don’t live on salads. Curries, chillies, burgers, pasta, paninis, toast, cereals, fruit, chips, baked potatoes, roast dinners, snacks, sausage rolls and pies. And… salad 😂
@@finanigan6269 Also, doesn't he ONLY eat raw meat, with a bit of salt, or something?
@@J0MBiyea
What should we do about the racist abuse this person recived?
Peterson: "What even is racism?"
Go clean ur room!.. lol
What is even “racism”?
And he's right?????
@@yusufhousini What?
It can be an easily answered question or not. For example here in Italy lots of women are fascist, specially in the city I come from, but fascism itself sees women as inferior beings. I asked those women (they were girls at that time) "So you are a girl AND a fascist. Does that mean you believe you are inferior?" The answer was a mixture of meaningless body movements and gestures and half sentences like "Nah" "You don't understand" etc. One of them even admitted she would K**l a baby of color (and she depicts herself as a "strong christian"). So we SHOULD know what is racism precisely and how it is intertwined with religion, money, politics etc. How it works and what triggers it. Also the vast majority of italian racists don't even know that so many other racists from abroad believe italians are inferior even if they are white. So, yes, what even is racism? Reducing it as a simple phenomenon does not help anybody
Peterson exists to be an apologist for the present status quo, his argument is 'there might be SOME issues with our present systems, but they are minor problems , the system is far better then anything else we can come up with and you cant improve it anyway because we are all flawed individuals and not fit to ask for improvements unless we are perfect and can keep our rooms clean " .However this very troubled person seems to think hes qualified to comment on ANY subject whatsoever even though he is patently incapable of functioning at times himself and his constant complaining about how badly HE is treated indicates a serious persecution complex.
He is an utter pillock , and hes getting worse by the week.
"I am treated badly" because of a social structure "therefore, it is a problem of mine rather than the problem, of a social structure." Yet he keeps living in a destructive mess blaming the system while advertising for self correctness, therefore he is unable to see beyond his myopic preconceived fallacy.
He is utterly confused mind. Sad!
@@mindsindialogue do you always take quotes out of context to prove your flawed points?
@@Iknowbetterthanyou how is my point flawed, mind to enlighten me?
@@room_threeothree arguing with a Peterson fantard is like arguing with Peterson. They'll just hit you with word salad and never answer the question.
Nonsense, he argues against radically replacing the existing system that has been tested and has several flaws with an untested system that could be even worse. He doesn't oppose improvements of the system. When sailing in a leaky boat, you don't demolish the boat to build a new one, you try to patch the leaks and bail at least untill you get to shore. Misrepresentation of his ideas followed by poisoning the well fallacies are not the same as a convincing argument.
Jordan Peterson, the king of saying a thousand things that mean absolutely nothing...
Dude, seriously! It boggles the mind that people take him seriously.
@@fishdude666ify its the same kind of personality type that falls for get rich quick schemes and stuff. They think life fixes and personal growth just needs a simple/quick fixes. People that find motovation from a random quote...they refuse any shades of grey in life.
So it is nothing when he speaks in depth on Dostoevsky, Jung and Solzhenitsyn ? He might have something to say about Wodehouse.
@@johnhaggerty4396 dude Peterson literally said Hitler's motivations regarding the genocide of the Jews was motivated by an obsession with cleanliness, and then he sights Zyclon B as an example, because it was previously used as a pesticide. This is the stupidest thing, anyone has said to justify Hitler...Using Zyclon B wasnt even his idea...it was the idea of a commendant in Aushwitz under Rudolph Höss. And derivitives of Zyclon B were created as chemical weapons long before world war 2. He mimics "smart" but its all just verbal nonsense.
Or saying things stupid people don’t understand.
I would clean my room, but unfortunately for me to do that I'd have to consider the generalised abstractions that are "a mess" and "my room", which is why it's absolutely futile to even try. Can you even define what a mess is? Or a room for that matter? Does my room end at the door, or is it merely an metaphor for my living space at large, in which case do I consider my street.. my city.. my country also as part of my room? And even if we could even begin to untangle the finely layered multitude of incomprehensible spacial metaphors this encompasses, which of course is impossible, we would then have to deal with the roaring dragon in the room, as described in the hero's journey and investigated over many many years by the great Carl Jung, who of course would never have cleaned his room because he KNEW how impossible of a task this paradox truly is. Because that roaring dragon is having to define what a "mess" really is, and if you look closely, it's impossible, there's nothing there but a postmodernist hellscape that is just communist authoritarianism in sheeps' clothing trying to convince you that human suffering is somehow real, which of course it isn't, because human suffering is just another facet of the postmodernist reality-denying leftists' agenda to create issues out of thin air through the same generalisations that make it impossible to clean my room. If you are TRULY interested in truth, in real solutions, then what you need is not to engage in the futile exercise of defining what cleaning your room is, what you need to do is take a tonne of benzos and just.. look at lobsters. Wow aren't lobsters neat? Just look at 'em go!
You lost me at the roaring dragon part. But the first bit is unironically a good point, though! If your 'room' is a metaphor for the place you live, you should be trying to make it better, which is what activism is. If it's a metaphor for your own personal mess, well, everyone else's mess is intertwined with yours, so maybe you need to actually look outside yourself to clean it.
Beautiful 😂 can imagine it in his squeaky voice
😂 brilliant
Well the fact that those guys got away with the racist slurs as long as they did, and no action was taken against them even when the news borke out, is proof of structural racism.
E x a c t l y
But that's too much to grasp for him and his followers....
The whole concept of institutional racism is just a handful of people who feel the need to be a victim throughout all situations for as they have read from progressive medias that they are oppressed.
There are no laws explicitly discriminating against minorities. One hell of a delusion you live in. It’s the bubble where you only seek what you want to see, not the actual reality.
Not it isn't, it's proof that there wasn't sufficient proof that there were any slurs uttered to begin with.
😂 the mental gymnastics
No, proof of structural racism is everyone being able to openly and constantly be racist toward white people and receive no repercussions whatsoever, no matter how much time goes by. Whatever slurs you're referring to are replicated every six seconds on Black Twitter.
Jordan Petersen believes himself to be profound, but he's nothing more than a sophist.
Braaavo ! That's exactly what I call him.
He is the modern day sophist
He is a dishonest person and I don't understand why... he is a smart person and he acts the way he does making it actually evil.
Intellectually Dishonest, he is.
He's bought and paid for now. He discovered how much money Ben Shabeebo was making at the Daily Wire and said hey me too! He's now a mouthpiece for the oil and gas industry as a climate change denier. The guy has zero credibility left. Wouldn't surprise me if he became a regular guest of Faux and Fiends
@@AntitheistHuman
Incoherent word salad nonsense is the best description I have heard of Jordan Petersen’s incoherent word salad nonsense.
Yea, just like most poeople would consider the 300+ pages of proof for 1+1=2 to be incoherent symbol salad nonsense. Quite often 'word salad' accusations turn out to be argument from ignorance fallacies. What evidence do you have that this is not the case here? Just the fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's nonsense, it merely means you didn't get it. Decent people generally ask for a reformulation or clarification when they don't understand something someone else said.
The mathematical proof isn't invalid just because you are not familiar with the symbols or too lazy too read throught the 300+ pages of the proof.
It must suck to be a snowflake
"...and it's like, yeah! Of course! And you might not like that, but that's reality, sunshine!"
It’s typically not incoherent or nonsense, it’s wordy basic sense ironically lacking nuance.
Lmao😂
I hate how, when he's asked to explain his reasoning, he always replies basically one phrase that it's as ambiguous and abstract as what he initially said. It's clearly a dog whistle to the audience that dismisses the r*cist slurs.
Every instinct in my body tells me he is a bigot
Yes finally someone is talk8ng about his addiction. Hes what we call a dry drunk.
I call him a pillfiend
what is that mean
Jordan Peterson always attaches himself to conservative ideas, and then pulls everything out of his bag to confirm his side as truth. Instead of truly trying to be middle ground you can tell this guy has a political ideal he is greatly attached to.
because liberals gone too far in the leftist shuthole. talking common sense is considered as conservative. like there is a difference between men and women.
@@alexmason8557 If that's what you tell yourself to sleep at night
Doesnt we all do that in a debate about politics?
His political ideal is vastly apolitical.
He despises ideologues, and is intelligent enough to see the fact that ideas of structural racism are not politically neutral, but in fact are born of far-leftist ideology.
The idea that the West is a fundamentally racist place is absurd and deserves to be completely dismissed as Peterson does.
It is not "middle ground" to assume that structural racism exists, it is far from it.
@@vignesh1065 No, actually it's what a lot of people who've been liberal their entire lives are thinking while watching the world around us turn into a divided mess.
Man sometimes I cannot follow what Jordan Peterson is saying, not cause im dumb but because he seems to be talking about a completely different subject, I just get lost
Thank you for being able to express your ideas clearly and calling JP on his bullshit
verbiage is an effective method for hiding ignorance
Hes so guilty of word salad
I binge watched a ton of your videos since yesterday and this is by far my favorite. I wish it wasnt so hard to find comic book content creators that have an iota of dignity an ethics, so I'm making a point of sharing your videos with a lot of friends. Thank you for making content, for real.
Reminds me of an old saying. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, just baffle them with bullshit" That's him.
he's just playing free jazz with words
Every time I listen to Jordan P. I get really confused on what people see in him. He rarely has a good answer to a question and what’s more is he keeps talking and talking about the same point in away that gets you exhausted of listening and becomes background noise
I guess they see themselves: 1d10ts.
It maddens me how much followers he has. And when you point out his BS, you get his fans call us toxic.
Twisted view all around.....
Peterson IS the toxic one. All the fame and money made on spreading hatred and growing his ego....
I wish there were more videos like this of Jordan Peterson. Videos of him keep popping up in my feed and he is just awful. People need to talk about why his reasoning is so flawed. Because in his “debate” videos, he inevitably uses pseudo intellectual vocabulary to distract from the actual issue in the most self centered and condescending way possible. And so many people like him.
If you haven’t seen already, I dropped another one like this recently 😎
Lol you've got issues.
@@KagedTyrant Why yes, I do have a strong understanding of many issues :)
@@PillarofGarbage I wasn't talking to you sir.
It's because Peterson's ideology (Conservatism) is fundamentally flawed. Because Conservatism is an anti-democratic and anti-social ideology that is incompatible with modern civil democratic society, because it places the "rights" of the individual above the good of society. We cannot have a sustainably functioning society under such terms where society can be exploited and undermined by a select few individuals who have few to no checks or balances on their influence and power.
Conservatism is an antiquated, unsustainable, and failed ideology, much like Feudalism and Monarchism, and it no longer deserves to be given serious consideration, beyond being examined as a historical curiosity.
Imagine if doctors and medical scientists took this approach. Imagine doctors and researchers that took no interest in diagnosing a disease, but instead focused only on treating individual symptoms as they occur. We still would have no clue as to the difference between viral and bacterial infections, nor would we really know that such things existed. Cancer would be a cluster of independent symptoms that keep popping up for no obvious reason, and we’d consider someone with malaria and someone with the flu to have the same generic disease because they both have a fever, chills, and nausea, despite the fact that malaria is a parasite and the flu is a virus. And that’s if we even came up with the concept of a disease causing the symptoms at all!
Also, great video!
You are assuming the claims of structural racism are true, a claim is not fact or evidence. You are making a faulty comparison between biological disease, and something societal and psychological. Racism is not a structural/societal problem, it's a human problem, humans are tribal in nature. Jumping to ignorant divisive conclusions is counter productive.
@@Zoney06 couldn't agree more
@@Zoney06 I am not “jumping to ignorant divisive conclusions.”
My point is that by only looking at the symptoms and not even attempting to address the core issue, racism is allowed to thrive.
The system itself may not be inherently racist, in that it cannot exist without racism. However, if people are allowed to get away with racism on a regular basis with no consequences, like in the above example and many others, that makes the system racist. The system allows racism to thrive, and that is a fact.
P.s. You can’t say that racism is a problem with human tribalism while simultaneously saying that it’s not a societal problem. Those two are intertwined. Tribalism is a societal problem. Racism is a problem with tribalism. Therefore, racism is a societal problem.
@@apocalypticbluegrass yes, sometimes people will be racist, whether the system is racist or not. However, that’s not evidence that the system is not racist.
Frogs can live away from the water, but that doesn’t mean that when you see one it isn’t a sign that water’s nearby.
@@_somerandomguyontheinternet_ If the foundation is human tribalism, then obviously that will affect all the levels above, including societal. If you don't focus on the foundation you won't solve the problem, focusing on the social and societal level is the wrong place to focus, because the foundation will be the same. Plus it just divides people further, which is happening now.
Focusing on individuals, and individual differences moves away from tribalism and groups. Teaching people to focus on individual differences targets the problem at the very core.
The scariest thing regarding people like Peterson, is that if you look up just clips of his “academy” speeches etc, not videos of his words being critiqued or in groups, is the amount of random average people around the globe that find these and are “inspired”. He often talks on “facts” that he shows no data or research of and even at times sounds impossible to even study, and instead of questioning his words they actually believe he must be completely correct and make comments seeming as if they have gained great knowledge or enlightenment on the topic. When I’ve been annoyed enough to comment common sense and ask people to question and think about it, as well as provide good counter arguments of why it’s not true, they just see him as truth and completely ignore this. When you realize how many people will believe anyone they don’t research or know because they seem to be an intellectual or in a suit with some platform, it’s truly sad. Scary even how many do it and how much they’ll let those words impact their thoughts and actions.
One of his former colleagues, can't recall the name, said he wasn't a good professor. He would state his opinions as facts, even when called on it by other members of faculty. And he seemed to want “followers” not students. He wanted to be a mini cult leader. A Peterson stan would say that former colleague is jealous, but from what I've seen of Peterson, that behavior fits.
Sounds more like a generally scary thing about mobs and masses than that it has anything to do with specifically Peterson.
@@BlacksmithTWD yes, except for he's the type to enjoy followers in my opinion.
@@Wishfull171 Do you happen to know of someone with thousands of followers who doesn't enjoy followers?
The comments are always the scariest part.
I’m not the only one that sees through him when he is spouting out words that don’t even have anything to do with the subject he is talking about or the fact he addresses a problem and doesn’t talk about solving it.
He's topped himself since then. He is indeed just a grifter. He folds like a canape at anything that actually requires moral fortitude.
exactly, he so easily folds, as he stands behind nothing in truth, nothing other than the grift that is
This appeal to individual responsibility is a very underhanded punchline, that conservatives (which Peterson has always been) love to throw around. Because most people will never run out of things, that they need to attend to or that linger on their To-Do-List.
So implicitly it always comes across like: "You have no moral right to complain! You have shit to do!" Which perfectly sums up the political Stockholm Syndrome that so many working poor in the US heartland suffer from, when they routinely vote against their best interests.
I highly recommend the book "Deer Hunting with Jesus". It really throws a light on the frame of mind, that has been cultivated for decades. “Don't lament, live the American dream (even if it takes you two jobs, with little to show for it)”. It is a transparent slogan to delegitimize each and any protest. Because you can almost always apply it. Also, you get to imply that the protestors are just a bunch of lazy bums.
So this shoulder padding talking point of "personal responsibility" is a conventional deepity, that is often presented by political talking heads and business persons, who blatantly talk out of both corners of their mouth, when they utter it.
Well said.
Also, he's an addict with serious drug problems and yet he feels he is entitled to tell everyone how to act. So, other people must get their shit together before telling others how to behave but somehow he doesn't. He's a complete joke.
The paradox of tolerance: To have a tolerant society requires that we do not tolerate intolerance.
So what you're saying, what you feel is -- and this is to choose another quote -- is that 'a healthy society must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil'?
Can't share links in UA-cam comments sections, but you might like to search for an article called 'Tolerance is not a moral precept' by Yonaton Zunger. The entire article is worth reading, but here's a salient quote: '[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.'
Peterson here is amazed that people is looking at him in shock and not in complete awe and admiration.
I'm not native English speaker. English is my third language. This guy just gives dyslexia. Thank you for clarifying he's spewing bs. I was began to doubt my English listening ability lol
Let me help you with that. Beginning*. You don’t use the past simple tense on the auxiliary verb after putting the verb “to be” in the same tense. So it’s going to be “I was beginning to doubt”. Hope this helps.
@@Littleknockoutkidmac That was not the point.
@@rbvp45 well he helped him. Do you always attack people who want to help other people? Why the hate? Is your life so empty?
@@Iknowbetterthanyou preach
@@Littleknockoutkidmac god damn bro you didn’t let up on the guy. I actually thought he had good English considering the fact that it’s his third language
Early on Peterson said on Rogan show that "I have figured out how to monetise social justice warriors". Says everything you need to know about him.
Man you just doing the same thing - taking words out of context and making him look EVIL. He just want to talk to the observation that whenever his criticism increased the donation from Peter account soared like anything.Nobody is foolish enough to give up his money it means that whenever people listen to him consider him to be right because he’s. No you may judge me that I am I am conditioned person and let me tell you I always see his debates and I have never seen anyone, All the left ideology journalist tried to put words in his mouth but he thrashed them in debates, Cathy Newman.
@@YashRaj-fm8sz
All the things he said on Kathy Newman I tervuew have come back to haunt Peterson. Of course she was bamboozled by his word salads. On the surface Peterson can sound very reasonable but when you dig deeper it's very apparent he makes lots of assumptions and likes to cherry pick the data he picks from. Whenever he's gone against people as well prepared as him like matt dillahunty and Sam Harris he's shown all the flaws in his arguments. Which is why he prefers lectures now rather than debates. It had took me hours and hours of watching Peterson videos to come to this conclusion. I'm not interested in converting you in any way. I do have sympathy for the health problems he and his family have had. I'm just answering what you said in your comment.
That comment on Rogan was supposed to be funny.
@@hooligan9794
Many a true word is spoken in jest
@@redmed10 right. OK.
When you played that first clip i had a lot of trouble following along. i thought that i was being the stupid one but he's genuinely spewing bs
Voilà.
But according to his fans, we're all st0p1d.
I wonder what that makes them....
By sheer coincidence, I'm watching this video during the time where Peterson has basically imploded over calling Elliott Page by his name.
I’m disappointed, but not - at all - surprised by the latest saga :(
Well, you talk about coincidence like that's a socially deterministic norm that isn't subject to individualistic presuppositionalism, and that it's like, yeah! This is kind of a beeg deal! But the postmodernist marxist will say "well, okay, but that's an unfalsifiable juxtaposition of nonconformity" and it's like, yeah, but you can't unconfirm the reality of the undeniable duality that exists in all of society!
Jordan "word salad" Peterson
That's what people who don't understand him say, yes.
This was a fantastic rebuttle. I see so much hypocrisy in him. In general the problem Peterson has is that he's purposely vague in his statements, which leads to him constantly being "misrepresented", so he does the same thing he criticizes these people for. Basically what he was trying to do here was stifle speech for the greater good. In his understanding, a discussion of institution racism leads to bad things in society like groups being pitted against each other. But he doesn't seem to realize that's what most of the "leftists" he bitches about are doing?
I think the ultimate reason why he wants to shut down discussions of institutional racism/sexism etc., is because he believes in natural social hierarchies and that can't continue to exist if without things like racism and sexism.
It's nice when he isn't the only person on stage. Quite often he's solo and gets to go down his absurd, intolerant rabbit holes uninterrupted. People calling out his shit live is refreshing.
How is Kermit the Fraud still a thing?
Love this. Using this name to describe him from now on 😂
1:45 Where exactly is the contradiction? Generalisations can have exceptions. That's why they're called generalisations.
Peterson pretends as if group pressure, power dynamics and mass psychology could not exist when we talk about „iNdivDuAls😅“
The thing is individuals can only be held accountable by the system. The system has the task and responsibility to enforce rules, and punish those that go against these rules. However, inaction and indifference of the system are the problem. If the committees, the investigators etc. do not care about racism, bullying, harassment in any kind or form, and even protects the individuals in question, then yeah, we can talk about structural discrimination (be it racism, sexism etc.)
Okay, but, does the system keep its own room tidy? Let's start from there!
The focus on personal responsibility as OPPOSED to politics and social justice is not just a mistake, but a trend often seen in new-age, anti-intellectual and conservative strains of thought. It doesn't challange the dirty political and economic forces.
In reality there IS no seperation between social change and personal responsibility. The personal is political, and the political is personal. Ideologies live within us. Every revolution starts within people, with people rejecting the ideology first within them, then outwardly. Anti-racists, feminists, vegans, socialists. People start to live in now modes, use the language in a new way, and become empathic and critical. They start to live meaningfully for others and not just themselves and immidiate family.
Doesn't Peterson embody the exact thing he claims to be against?
Jordan Peterson is always talking about people not being equipped to change the world until they fix themselves. I partly agree. Traumatized peole react in traumatized ways that tend to harm themselves and others even more. But in Peterson-land "fixing yourself" means "uncritically adopt the traditional conventions in your society". Probably because some conservative strands in psychology tend to equate "healthy" with "adheres well to social norms" (read Todd Grande *cringe*).
And look who is speaking. The man who singlehandadly tries to "save western judeo-christian tradition" while addicted to benzos, not being able to digest fibre and constantly on the verge of crying. He is an emotional mess, ascribing ill intentions everywhere people claim to want a better world. Paranoia, rage, despair, always lurking beneath the surface. He had some things to say, but his contribution to the cultural discorse is LONG expired, and he just remains a desperate, paranoid and irrational force for evil, now.
It surprises my why person who talks so much how hierarchy is important of why society works properly, cannot understand that this very hierarchy HAVE TO be responsible also for bad things in our society.
Jordan Peterson sounds like and look like Dr Friedlander from gta5.
This dude. 😂
A common response of his in response to the topic of inequality is that people are better off now than they used to be on average, which is a stupid argument because it alters the issue by making a tenuous comparison. Sure we are a richer western world than we were, but inequality is generally worse, and amid such wealth that makes it so much worse.
In general, Jordan speaks a lot of sense wrt psychology but in getting political discussion, he greatly oversimplifies and takes the right wing stance on most issues.
What exactly is wrong with inequality? Why does someone having more money than you affect you negatively?
@@apexdisease6030 You're doing the same thing. Oversimplification. Rich people DO exploit the poor and that's not even debatable.
go back a hundred years and compare the equalities of now and then.
@@jeielkamei4452 Go back 45 years and we were a lot less unequal.
@@Coneman3 And in the 21st century, women are far better off than they were 45 years back
It's nice to see that when Peterson's word salad is questioned, his only recourse is to toss more salad
Honestly. You can hardly make sense of what he’s saying, and when you do it’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard
Also he’s not an addict if he is sober
"Things need to be particularized rather than generalized, GENERALLY speaking." What the hell...
The question I have is, if Jordan Peterson feels that one should fix oneself before trying to fix the world, why doesn't he retreat from conservative commentary and focus on fixing himself?
I find it scary that there are hoards of young men who look up to him as an idol
Me too :(
That's because he tells them they need to try to make their bed in the morning rather than just sit around the house and mope all day. If you made up your bed, at least you did SOMETHING. He also says life is about responsibilities and not just rights. Is he incorrect about that?
@@theboombodyno, but then he also says that women solely exist to create babies and make men miserable
@@theboombodyThat‘s probably the least problematic statement he made haha. It‘s just mind-boggling to me how long he takes to explain what you just stated in two sentences.
Problematic is his political discourse.
@@theboombody Congrats, I guess? You found one small thing he said that is good advice (as well as unoriginal and unimpressive) out of a massive laundry list of horrible and malformed opinions he's had. You could have picked any one of those opinions, but you chose the one normal argument he's made out of hundreds to represent him. That's a very dishonest framing.
Thanks for posting this; everyone needs to see this in as many places as possible.
I'm convinced JP is a narcissist. He insists he's correct on everything he discusses because if he isn't his whole "hierarchy of value" doesn't mean much, which it doesn't. He has to frame everything in such vague terms as to seem profound, but able to backtrack to point the finger at someone challenging him as "misunderstanding" his meaning. He won't answer straight forward questions regarding religion because he is afraid of alienating his rightwing Christian base as "anti-theiest", therefore "God" is the Divine level of value in his hierarchy. And he's got books to sell.
"Things need to be particularized, instead of generalized. As a general rule"
The jokes write themselves
I totally agree with this video and thank you for making it! :)
The only part I think I can reach common ground with Jordan Peterson is that "fixing ourselfs" has impact on a global scale which will have an impact in core issues such as the climate change. "Education changes people. People change the world", if we all get knowledgeable regarding a problem it's way easier to solve it.
Oh yeah, nothing against ‘fixing ourselves’, but it can’t be a prerequisite for trying to do stuff in the wider world. Another Peterson video coming out this weekend btw!
54% of adults in the USA cannot read at a middle school level. 21% are functionally illiterate. Guess which Americans are the Jordan Peterson followers
That's the mark of a true scammer, tho
Use grains of truth to get your mark nodding - once they are agreeing with you, it's easier to convince them of your nonsense
@@danielcrafter9349using popular name to get attention isnt any different.
Excellent analysis! There seems to be little room for this kind of discussion on UA-cam with all the fanatic Peterson fans swarming the comment threads. More of these are needed; thanks for making and posting this!
As it happens, there’s more coming in the next couple of weeks!
* subscribes *
He thrives on the people who aren’t capable of finding coherency in more complex matters.
Just got this recommended. Very well done; The best analysis of Jordan Peterson I've seen so far. Thank you for this!
It's ironic that he is a psychologist.. So, if a person comes to him saying they were abused, he is the kind of person who would ask how did you provoke them? Or why didn't you just stop them?
He is the kind of person who will let you figure out how to move past it and help you find reason to keep living despite the pain. This video should not give you reason to say what you have said about him. You should learn more about him. That you would ignore the fact that he has helped thousands of people improve their lives, including rape victims, tells me all I need to know about you. Would you appreciate someone saying something like that about you if you were in Jordan’s shoes?
@Shanks RedHair All I need is to know how to build a house in order to help someone who rebuild their home. I need to have gone through the experience of losing my house to a storm before I can help. Your dad was wrong. All it takes is kindness and empathy to want to help someone deal with a difficult emotional problem. You don’t have to be a messed up crack head. Maybe you could be wiser than your father.
Or he'd ask if their room was clean, and if it wasn't, say, "well that's your problem."
@@graemelaubach3106 nope. He’d say clean your room. And after you clean room, fix your relationships, get a job, add value to others lives. Then you can go change the world once you have proven that you can make positive changes in those smaller ways. That’s is wisdom.
That you would fight this man on whatever he says without proving why his advice is wrong and providing a better alternative shows your lack of it - wisdom.
It’s so sad how men idolize this man. Some people are just looking for someone who can justify their close minded old school mentality in a way they can’t, as though they are based in logical reasoning and rationale but is really just flawed ideas coated in fancy vocab words and this false sense of profoundness.
I second this
I was in the cult for a bit, not proud of it.
I don't think that many of them do idolize him anymore. Not if they're still actually listeninng to the crapfest that comes out of his mouth on topics he knows nothing about.
@@DarkEagle01 me too. At least we're out now. Some people may never leave.
"these specific people should face consequences"
Except... They didn't? Wasn't that the whole point here?
Mistake number 1: trying to think logically about something JP said
If a person can fix themselves then maybe he should start with himself.
Can’t believe he didn’t mention ‘neo-marxists or post-modernism’
Well he has topped this many times over since then.
Scary thing is he has so many fanboys, for some reason lot of clips of him started popping in my recommendations, all of them he was talking nonsense against social problems, and the comments of course were all dudes cheering him
It’s a sad state of affairs :(
Prager U. Pretty much says all the nothing that needs to be said about it.
So Peterson uses phrases like 'I don't think it's helpful' to get out of talking about certain things. He never makes clear why he thinks this. Other things he says to get out of awkward situations is 'well good luck with that' and 'that's that'. For the supposed great debater these are childish get outs that show you're out of real arguments.
Well, maybe he thinks it self explanatory. Just think about it. Don't be biased. What would be the consequences of his oppositions solution and the other solution?
We live in a society.
I was a strong supporter of capitalism which he champions but I think that ideas like socialism should be explored .
In US , I am seeing that there are so many homeless people and they are all labeled as bad people. I checked more into videos that interview homeless people and it turns out most of them were doing ok until someone either lost his/her job , one homeless guy was homeless because he couldn'r face the death of his wife so he couldn't go back to the place he shared with his wife, one was looking for a job and living in tents and was not able to make ends meet on minimum wage and then comes the drug use.
JBP has championed capitalism and whole heartedly refused or taught to not help other people out because one has to fix him/herself. There are valid arguments to that but you would never see peterson talking about lowering the materialism we are so badly addicted to or drive an eco-friendly car etc.
I checked what Finland did to mitigate homelessness , Finland has a policy of "housing first" where if you have lost your job and are not able to support yourself , you will be given a place to stay first then they will sort out other stuff.
I would like to give him the benfit of doubt but the way I think is there is a lot of lies involved from his side now and it is all about the money and all that fame has went to his head.
As a general rule let's particularize not generalize
Your criticism of Peterson's individualism is valid. Your criticsm of the specific talking point he brought up in this case, however, is not.
Popper reported this famous anecdote about his interaction with Adler, that I think might help clarify:
Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. 'Because of my thousandfold experience,' he replied; where upon I could not help saying: 'And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold'."
You see the point here? The particular case that Popper described to Adler was understood and explained and interpreted by Adler in light of his global, abstract theory: it would not look 'adlerian' per se, but if you accept Adler's pespective everything becomes adlerian. Once you have accepted the theory, the broader framework, as a priori true, you will find confirmations of its validity everywhere. That's why reasoning should go the other way: you start from particular cases, and then you build a theory that relies on them.
When you discuss an episode of racism, you must be able to identifiy the episode as racist without appealing to a larger, global, abstract theoretical framework about the omnipresence of racism. A racist act must be racist even without mentioning or discussin "systemic" or "structural" racism. Otherwise, like Adler, you will be able to find confirmations of systemic and structural racism everywhere.
And, in parenthesis, that's actually very common in discourse about discrimination. You might ask your interlocutor why they are so sure that some act, that doesn't seem racist or sexist or whatever at all, is racist, and they will reply "in lgiht of systemic racism/sexism".
And that's an obvious fallacy. If you can't explain why a specific act, *per se* , is racist, if it's racist only bacause you are applying a theory-of-everything that makes it racist, then it's not.
Don’t you think that in a context such as an open discussion panel he could come up with better ways to convey this idea? As soon as he used quotation marks on racism he lost a lot of credibility. And him trying to justify the need to discuss each episode individually and out of context does follow the example Popper pointed out, but at the same time he was also talking about something he very clearly wasn’t very knowledgeable on. So how could he even discern whether it was or wasn’t due to the structure of the institution?
@@gvnnbrsr I'm not saying that Peterson is perfect, that he is always honest, or that he nevers bulshits (he bullshits a lot actually, try to ask him if he is a christian and get ready to mumbo jumbo). I'm just saying that the specific point was valid as a statement.
You nailed it! This is precisely what he is doing. He’s a great protector of the status quo. He’ll give lip service to the idea that there are systematic problems and things about society that could be improved, but you’ll never hear an answer out of him. He’ll never suggest we actually do anything to fix the problems. We shouldn’t, according to him. It’s too risky. We don’t know what might happen. So we need to keep things exactly as they are now. And wouldn’t you know it, how things are now just happens to work extremely well for the white, well-educated man Peterson is.
He’s a grifter. He’s the strongest proponent of the status quo I’ve ever seen. The fact that so many people see value in him saying “we shouldn’t ever change anything at a societal level because it’s scary” and people actually think he’s got something deep or intelligent to say amazes me. It’s a blight on the education system that so many people can’t see the obviousness of his grift.
Most of JP's contribution over many years could be usefully summarised as ...projection.
"Doesn't matter how clean your room is, if your tongue is toxic."
Listening to JP feels like having sand paper rubbed against my brain - his points - or lack thereof - are that painful to listen to.
Lol I’ve always said it’s like he pulls “truth” out of his pocket and rarely ever gives actually data or proof to show for this, as well as at some points picks one small existing thing to prove his thought on a large scale. Though some people just eat it up and support it fully without their own research and it’s wild to me.
The fallacy of hypostatization happens when someone thinks of an abstract concept as if it was a concrete thing. Another name for the fallacy is reification. An example would be someone who says "justice demands" something. Justice is really an abstract concept and has no way to "demand" anything.
Genuine question: what does this comment have to do with video?
A lot
@@unknownuser2897 He's basically saying that in some instances Peterson's overgeneralisations lead to him saying that more clear cut structural problems are not being well defined, hence the "justice demands" example.
Justice might just be a concept but there is a transition to reality when real world issues relating to it become more relevant. I think rather than using word salad and psychobabble and falling back into what he knows best, Peterson should probably research the topic he is on the panel to discuss, rather than just relying on his audience being ignorant while being captivated by the illusion of profundity.
Isn't Peterson basically doing exactly the same as he complains about? He's always talking about morals, good, God... He's a sophist, he doesn't believe anything he's saying, he always has an ulterior motive. And he's not even good at hiding it out, he has slipped many many times losing his temper and having the most outrageous reactions like when he said that Elliot Page's surgeon was a criminal. He's a wacko that knows how to manipulate people via dialogue thanks to his psychology degree (nothing against psychology as a profession).
Peterson is so dishonest in all areas.
Having watched this video two times, it seems more to me that the narrator is biased.
based*
@@PillarofGarbage I agree.
"tHiS iS JuSt LiKe gEorge OrWeLLs 1984" every Peterson fan ever
He says a lot of words and I don't understand them, it must mean he is very smart.
- Jordan Peterson fanboys
6:14 “Petersons world then is a world of individuals who have ultimate power within their own lives and aren’t held back by structures and systems”
With this statement you are giving Peterson far too much credit.
This statement assumes his statements are meant in good faith. But as far as I can see the evidence is that Peterson believes that Conservative maintenance of the Status Quo is paramount and if you have issues with the society you have to fix yourself by coming into alignment with societal norms. He talks about individuality, but the reality is he abhors people being respected for their individuality. IE His endless attacks on LGBT communities.
[EDIT]OK You go on to say much the same thing as I have...[/EDIT]
Bro!!!! 6:51 😆😂 though
Perfectly summarised 👌👍
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Thank you. I always feel alone in my discernment and interpretations. I now know I am not!
Thing about Peterson is that his mask has come off and became obvious conservative fanatic after his brain melt down with drug action and no longer make convoluted sentences to hide his agenda.
Now he cries when sees a plus size model in swimsuit magazine
This is yet another example of what i like to call ''Conservatives going: Oh what are words, i don't know what they are, seriously? What even are they?'' It consist of conservative grifters pretending they doesn't know what a word or multiple words mean in an effort to derail a conversation, and this words are words that everyone understands but for some reason they don't and they get mad at us for understanding lol Peterson does this a lot but he geniunally doesn't understands what words are a lot of times and is mindblowing to watch, an other example would be ''What is a woman''
Holy hell, I'm beginning to think Jordan Peterson uses the same brainwashing shampoo as Ben Shapiro.
Anyone who thinks his philosophical views and opinions are flawed should just ask themselves “What field of expertise am I excelling at? How well do I understand human history? And how much literature have I read and fully understand?”. The less you know and understand , the blinder you will be to research and others’ ideas.
Peoples experience with literature and expertise in their fields are exactly why they think his philosophical views and opinions are flawed. Those who simply take him at his word, on the other hand, betray their dogmatic belief in a spoon fed ideology that claims to be backed up by sources, whilst never actually citing them without biased distortion.
@@hrishiv27 He cites every study behind the claims he makes, by name. One of his 12 rules for life is to avoid lying and another to always assume the other person knows something you don’t. He has consistently said he does not want to be idolized or viewed as some sort of supreme or superior being, which is why he actually takes time to speak to those who tell him their stories of how his literature has changed their lives for the better.
You know, I’d agree. Speaking as someone who holds multiple minor qualifications in history, and both a Bachelor’s (1st class) and Masters’ (distinction) in Literature, Peterson’s a pseudo-intellectual grifter.
@@PillarofGarbage I’ve heard this many times but I’ve never really received an explanation or a reference as to why some might believe that. Not something concrete at least.
@@toxxinvevo9354 But he rose to fame on a lie! And a damaging lie at that. He has persisted in misrepresenting Canadian legislation for years, now, too.
As a result, untold numbers of people around the world STILL firmly believe that trans people have somehow sought and received special treatment in Canada. Worse - that they are to blame for undermining basic freedoms/rights which are dearly held.
See: The Canadian Bar Association - CBA Position on Bill C-16 for a bit of that concrete.
In his Cambridge Union address Peterson claimed that he 'worked for a UN committee on sustainable economic and ecological development'. *He did not*
(He advised the former CEO of Blackberry who DID work for a panel on sustainability.)
On BBC's HardTALK Peterson claimed to be an 'evolutionary biologist' and an 'expert' no less. *He is not*
Speaking with 'Dr Oz', he claimed to be a 'social scientist'. *He is not*
In ‘12 Rules’, his biography stated he had been “inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe,” This prompted a comment from Pankaj Mishra, the NYT critic reviewing 12 Rules. To which Peterson replied as follows via twitter:
‘You say “Peterson claims that he has been inducted into ‘the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe’ Just what do you mean by “claims” you peddler of nasty, underhanded innuendo, you dealer in lies and halftruths?’ He also called Mishra a “sanctimonious prick”, an “arrogant racist son of a bitch” and threatened to “slap him” in one of his (now familiar) Peterson twitter meltdowns which he ended with the words “fuck you”.
It subsequently became clear that *Peterson was NOT inducted* as he claimed. The bio was amended.
So much for 'tell the truth, or at least, don't lie'.
He may well cite studies behind his claims, but how much of it do you checkout for yourself? Are you SURE it is represented accurately/correctly? Do you look for corroboration from those QUALIFIED to speak on the matter?
For EG, the research on which Peterson based his lobster thesis (dominance/hierarchy/serotonin/anti-depressants) was a minor study of captive lobsters, published in 1997. This looked at the effect serotonin and prozac, had on a lobster's 'decision' to fight or retreat. HOWEVER, the study findings were largely undermined within three years.
Further research in 2000 discovered that the large doses of serotonin used - several magnitudes higher than normal levels - had effectively paralysed the lobster.
It fixed them in a 'flexion' stance - which Peterson sometimes demonstrates and likens to that of a triumphant boxer after a knock out fight. In fact, the flexion stance immediately precedes flight, but the huge amounts of serotonin injected into them had rendered the lobsters physically unable to even initiate, let alone carry out, this natural response.
Ergo, all bets were off, when it came to related results and conclusions of the 1997 study.
*BTW these studies predate 12 Rules by 21 and 18 years respectively.*
Just to be clear, a great deal of research has been done since 1997, thanks to the concerns of the lobster fishing industry in the Gulf of Maine, which has funded most of it.
Furthermore, you won't find anyone qualified in any relevant field who supports Petersons observations. In fact, they were challenged/debunked at the time, by the likes of evolutionary biologist PZ Myers and Marine Biologist, Bailey Steinworth to name but two.
The question is this: do you STILL believe that human hierarchies are 'hard wired' - inevitable - part of our DNA due to evolutionary processes? If so, WHY?
Peterson has quite a reputation for his selective approach to research, knowledge or data, as well as a somewhat biased interpretation of it.
His observations on 'agreeableness' and the gender pay gap, the Nordic paradox and biological sex - QED. None bear close scrutiny.
He also has a well documented history of speaking at length on matters in which he has no expertise and misrepresenting himself/his work in the doing of it. Am happy to supply 'concrete' on that, too, if you like.
*But, with regard to history*
Either his knowledge is appalling or his recounting of it is disingenuous - specifically designed to push a highly questionable narrative.
One of his nastier habits is blithely skipping over 600+ hugely significant years in his recounting of modern European history. He does this, particularly, when speaking on the Bible/Christianity and Western Civilisation. For example, in the first lecture of his Biblical series, he leaps from the Bible to Nietzsche like a ruddy gazelle! That's over 1000 years!
Given the subject matter, it boggles the mind that he should completely ignore The Reformation, The Renaissance and The Enlightenment (including the Scientific Revolution).
In that BBC HARDtalk interview, Stephen Sakur raised this question and quoted Paul Thagard, a Canadian Philosopher who had also observed Petersons omission in his review of Maps of Meaning. Petersons response was to simply dismiss Thagard ('that person') and, with a wave of his hand, blew off circa 400 years of the Enlightenment - not only in it's significance, he even tried to reduce its duration to little more than 100 years! Thats just bonkers.
Oh and he has no problem pulling the atheist attrocities fallacy out of his back passage, as and when it suits him, too.
You've heard him referred to as a pseudo-intellectual grifter many times but apparently have not been moved to check anything for yourself.
So much for 'always assume the other person knows something you don’t'
Well, now you have a few things to go on.
You should *TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE*
What field of expertise does Peterson excel at? How well does HE understand human history? And how much literature has HE read and fully understood?
He is NOT a philosopher, biologist, evolutionary biologist, social scientist, historian, theologian, Biblical scholar or lawyer.
He just ain't.
He's a psychologist who well understands the power of pathologising discourse, the internet and the algorithm.
Think on.
.
JP is the stereotype of the kid at school that everyone wanted to punch in the face...and often was.
I eat meat. I'm not a word salad guy.😊
his mind is in decline but it never was full of original thought anyway - he takes what has been said by others and regurgitates it with the most verbose articulation he can
Sophistry 101. People have been doing it for centuries.
I enjoyed your perspective on why you disagreed with JP. Although I don’t think it benefits your point or the video to incessantly name call.
Yeah only peterson can do this, huh....
JP is right on the money here. Structural racism is a nonsensical idea.
I've heard Peterson going deep on "archetypes," which seems to be the same thing as "low-resolution thinking" but with more woo.
Also his insistence on only talking about specific, individual racist-motivated actions falls apart when you try to apply it to anything you'd encounter in real life. If I go to the park and my bike gets stolen once or twice, I might want to hold the individual bike thieves accountable. If my bike gets stolen every time I go to that park though, it's not crazy for me to think there's a problem with that park. Is that "low resolution thinking" or is that drawing an obvious damn inference?
Besides, he never takes this individualistic approach when talking about those the ideologically opposes. You could literally use his argument against him. "Oh, but what is a SJW, Jordan?. Who did that, when he did it, why? You can't use Social Justice as a concept, it's too broad, yada yada". He's a sophist because he never helps himself to the same rules he demands for others, which either means he's very dense, lacks self awareness or he plainly doesn't believe in what he says.
He's a bit like Nigel Farage. Complete useless, but keeps popping up all over the place, and talks utter twaddle.
Honest question: How does _ANYBODY_ take Jordan Peterson seriously? More often than not he's indistinguishable from satirical sketch comedy.
He attracts the angry white males, who can’t handle the fact that they aren’t receiving all their privilege at their expense anymore
Honest question: what answer do you expect?
Cause he's deep or Everybody is dumb?
What do you mean "How"?, what do you mean "does"? what do you mean "anybody"?
I haven't even gotten to the end of your question, bucko - and I'm already exploring the metaphysical substrate of consciousness. You might want to use fewer words, or we're going to be here by sundown.
@@aaad3552 "What answer do you expect?" I'm not sure you understand how questions work...
@@SaurianSavior you sound like a professor now you just need to pass the exam
I’m not convinced that all the film clips are recent, though QT clearly is.
You’re right - the QT time was fairly short, though, and there’s not a whole deal of great quality recent Peterson B-Roll
Jordan Peterson is really just Dave Rubin with a thesaurus.
Do any clinical psychologists disagree with Jordan?
That is a very good question. I doubt most clinical psychologists would agree with Peterson.
@@marthaworc7873
Yeah but where are they?
We NEED them desperately, someone need to shut that lunatic up.
So many people are siding with him, he needs actual smart individuals to show his true face to the world.
It cant go on this way....
He's so famous and making so much money off his hypocrisy!
He uses pseudo-intellectual jargon to make his opinions sound smart, but if you translate them into straightforward terms, he isn't reasoning, he's name calling, "low resolution thinking" is another term for stupid. One person asks a reasonable question based on societal consequences and his paraphrased response is "that's stupid." Seems like he's carrying on with the right wing tradition of projection.
While I appreciate seeing other points of view on topics like these I do think this video has missed the point in a big way. In this case what I gather from what Peterson said was that instead of immediately launching an investigation into the existence of a wider, more general form of institutional racism, we should begin by isolating the events and dealing with them in a much more specific way and building up from there. Even if there are multiple counts of racist behaviour within an institution that does not make it a 'racist institution', so starting an investigation in such a broad way is counterproductive and will just waste time. Which is literally what happened because although there were awful instances of racism within the cricket club it was not deemed to be institutionally racist as initially accused
Your weakness is a bit sad and funny simultaneously 😊
He also said that climate change should not concern people in general and than women are not good in science as men .I find the last one extremely offensive since there are great female scientists especially these days that completely change the world
Yup, he’s a certified moron…
I'm no fan of Jordan Peterson, but he was right, he never said that women are dumber than men it's just a fact that men have accomplished way more in science than women and that men are generally more interested in STEM fields than women, if mere facts offend you you're as full of shit as him
Total bullshit.
Citation needed.
Source?
@@PillarofGarbage This sounds outlandish. You aren't gonna ask him for citation?
I can’t wait for Peterson’s fans and critics to start duking it out in the comments….
Never mind, they already are.
The will say he was talking at high abstraction level that normal people cannot understand, whatever garbage that means.
No we're not ! We're all getting perfectly along !!
;)
@@train_cam * presses x to doubt *
He was asking for specifics. What is the problem?
This guy snifs up a litre on petrol and glue before he starts talking to people 😂😂